Re: Moving codecs to libwireshark or libwsutil?

[Bálint Réczey <balint () balintreczey hu>]

2015-12-02 21:25 GMT+01:00 Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>:
> 2015-11-30 20:15 GMT+01:00 Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>:
> > On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Yes I should have been clearer in my initial description.
> > > My suggestion with an extra parameter giving the hash table address is
> > > also working fine, so I do not have a strong feeling either way (the changed
> > > parameter is faster to do but might not be the best long term solution).
> >
> > Unless there's some compelling reason for them *not* to be in a dynamic
> > library, I think making libcodec a dynamic library the best long-term
> > solution.
> >
> > > If possible I would like to have this fixed for Wireshark 2.0.1 but I
> > > wonder if such change is compatible with our usual policy to keep APIs
> > > constant (does it apply when they are buggy?).
> >
> > Making it a dynamic library wouldn't change the API.
>
>
> Done: https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/12385/1
The discussion continued in the review, please join it if you feel so there.

Cheers,
Balint
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe